PCN from Euro Car Parks - signage very misleading - do I pay, ignore or appeal?

VT82

I had scoped out a car park near Wolverhampton train station with multiple big signs saying "P £5.50 ALL DAY". The next morning when it was still dark I paid the £5.50 that I had prepared in coins and returned a little over 13 hours later to collect my car. A week later (this Monday) I received a PCN from Euro Car Parks demanding £60 within 14 days or £100 thereafter. I've gone back to the car park and seen that, despite the big signs advertising £5.50 all day, on the board by the pay station it states £5.50 for 12 hours or £6 up to 24 hours. I would have paid £6 if I'd seen this, because I was fairly sure I'd be needing more than 12 hours and it was only an extra 50p.

To my mind, 12 hours is clearly not 'ALL DAY'. I don't have the ticket anymore - it presumably showed an end time for the parking, although I didn't check this as I assumed I would be fine whatever time I returned that day due to the signage - but their system will show I paid £5.50 as I had to enter my reg number.

I accept that I overstayed what I paid for according to their small signage, but I believe that the fine (or invoice, whatever it needs to be called) should be unenforceable due to their misleading signs. Do you think I should pay, ignore or appeal on this occasion?

Thanks in advance, and apologies if this is a regular query - I am not very familiar with the boards over the last few years.

Fruitcake

Get photos of the site and signage if possible. Please tell us where the alleged event occurred as it may have cropped up here before. Use Google Streetview to obtain images if necessary/

Was this a station car park or just a car park near a station?

It is not a fine.

The advice to ignore has not been given here since the law changed in 2012.

Plan A is always for the keeper to complain to the landowner and their MP.

If a landowner cancellation is not forthcoming, then appeal using the template in blue text you will find in the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES. Send it unaltered from the keeper.

VT82

Thank you @Fruitcake

I have photos. It was at Cornhill Wolverhampton (location code 683763). Not an official station car park from what I can tell.

When you say the landowner, is that Euro Car Parks? They do not allow you to discuss or appeal over the phone - has to be in writing. If not them, do you know how I could find out the landowner as it's not mentioned on the letter and Google hasn't helped so far.

Thanks for the future signposting of actions. Will definitely do this if landowner route (once I am able to try) doesn't work.

Fruitcake

Euro Car Parks won't own the car park.

Can you be more specific as GSV throws up about a dozen car parks using the information you supplied. A GSV link would be best.
Please also show the photos showing the tariffs.


Never, ever 'phone a parking company or any of their agents, ever.

To find the owner you could ask the council who pays the non-domestic business rates, or do other internet searches.

If appealing, send the one from the NEWBIES as advised from the keeper. Add a one liner that the prominent signage for the car park states £5.50 for all day, which was the tariff paid, therefore no breach of parking terms occurred.

Don't expect it to work though. Assuming it is rejected then you will ake a PoPLA appeal using the photos of the £5.50 charge as one of your appeal points.


Also complain to the BPA about the misleading signage, and DO complain to your MP. It's the only way this will ever change.

B789

Consumer Rights Act 2015... Section 69... Contract terms that may have different meanings...

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

When the scammers reject your initial appeal, you go to POPLA and depending on whether you get the tea-boy or an adjudicator on a bad day, if it ever got to court you'd likely win on the above CRA2015 S69(1) alone. However, do not rely on that solely. Use all the advice you read about it in the Newbies thread which you have, no doubt, already read, digested and understood... yes?

Coupon-mad

All if this is already explained in detail in the NEWBIES thread for new posters to read first.

VT82

Hi. I didn't post on the above again because of all the posts about reading the newbie thread. However there has been progress and I was hoping for more advice.

Unfortunately my partner didn't follow the steps outlined, but rather used the Euro Car Parks appeal process (which was obviously rejected), and then appealed through POPLA. Surprisingly to us, the POPLA appeal was rejected. The wording from that will be shown below. However we're still convinced that he's in the right and are not prepared to pay the £100.

I've read the Citizens Advice guide and it suggests, notwithstanding the option to just pay the fine, the next step is either to not pay the fine and see if ECP bother to take him to court, or pay the fine 'under protest' and go through the small claims court process. I don't think we'd be interested in the latter. Can you advise what the likely outcome would be if we went down the former route? Would we tell them we weren't prepared to pay and that they would have to take us to court, or would we just do nothing and see what action they take? Any advice appreciated.

Many thanks.




P.S. wording from POPLA, noting that the thing giving us hope is "I must advise that POPLA’s role is solely to assess whether a PCN was issued correctly":

For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • the signs state that parking costs £5.50 for all day. • they did not have any reason to believe that the fees on the machine were different. • the signage is misleading and is still in situ. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has provided comments and made reference to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided photographs of the sign. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

When parking in a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. In this specific car park, the terms and conditions state: “UP TO 12 HOURS…£5.50…UP TO 24 HOURS…£6.00…FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE: DISPLAY A VALID TICKET…”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant did not make sufficient payment for the duration of their stay. Images from the operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 07:52 and exited at 20:58 on 25 January 2023, staying for a total of 13 hours and six minutes. A screenshot of its transaction report has also been provided, showing that the appellant only made sufficient payment to park for up to 12 hours. It appears a contract between the driver and the operator was formed, and the operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. Within their grounds of appeal, the appellant has explained that there are large signs which advise that all day parking costs £5.50. They have explained that they did not have any reason to believe the tariffs were different and the signage is misleading. Within the comments section of their appeal, the appellant has made reference to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 regarding misleading terms. The British Parking Association has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. Both the appellant and the operator have provided photographs of the signage at the site. Having reviewed this evidence, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to advise of the parking tariffs. The large sign at the entrance to the site simply advertises all day parking at the rate of £5.50; after entering the site it is then a motorist’s responsibility to review the terms and conditions before choosing whether to park. As there is a large sign by the payment machines indicating how long the “all day” tariff is, I can only be satisfied that the appellant was presented with the opportunity to review the parking terms before deciding whether to park. In this case, the appellant simply did not read the parking conditions before paying. Furthermore, I note that the appellant is unhappy with the fact that the signs are still in situ and are unhappy with the way their appeal was handled. While I acknowledge the appellant’s grievances, I must advise that POPLA’s role is solely to assess whether a PCN was issued correctly; it is not within our remit to investigate any alleged shortfalls in the operator’s appeals procedure. Ultimately, the appellant did not make sufficient payment for their parking. By doing so, they have breached the parking conditions. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal is refused.

Momanns

Others will provide more detail but the appeal process is managed by the same PCN operators running the scam so only on very rare occasions is an appeal successful. Follow the guidance from the newbie section and this post and you stand an excellent chance once Euro Car Parks issue court proceedings. 

Le_Kirk

POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist.  Ignore the poor advice from Citizens Advice (CAB).  You are now at the waiting stage, waiting for the inevitable raft of debt collector letters, which, of course, you will know from reading the NEWBIE sticky fourth post to ignore (just collect) and the Letter of/before Claim, where you take the action advised in NEWBIE sticky second post.

B789

Whilst you will have to endure the inevitable barrage of useless debt collector letters which you will ignore, I don't think ECP are actually very litigious and will eventually move on to easier prey.

Coupon-mad

Momanns said:

Others will provide more detail but the appeal process is managed by the same PCN operators running the scam so only on very rare occasions is an appeal successful. Follow the guidance from the newbie section and this post and you stand an excellent chance once Euro Car Parks issue court proceedings. 

All very good advice - except we know ECP never file court claims.  At all.

The OP can safely ignore £170 debt demands. No bailiffs will come knocking, it will just be letters.